Occupancy

[electrofelon]

Don’t follow what you tell me above is one set of service entrance conductor run to each occupancy. I understand that.

What I cannot visualize is one set of service entrance conductor run to group of occupancies??

See the handbook exhibit 230.4

 

[electrofelon]

So if there are two meters then two occupancies? I just want to get that straight

No, or not necessarily. As I said in your other thread, the NEC does not define occupancy. You would have to check with your building code department to see if a given tenant space is legally a separate occupancy.

 

[electrofelon]

what? Please see attachment we are talking about NEC 230.2 exception first paragraph part where it talks about For the purpose of 230.40 exception no. 2....?

So if I have from one utility transformer one set of service entrance conductor # 1 and from that same transformer second set of service entrance conductor #2 and third set of service entrance conductor #3 then their service discos #1,#2,#3 are not required to be grouped?

Please also see separate attachment NEC 2014 Exhibit 230.7 shows each service entrance conductor i.e service entrance conductor #1, #2 #3...shows them being grouped and mentions per 230.40 exception no. 2

You keep intermingling two services, and one service with two sets of SEC. The reference in 230.2 to 230.40 ex2 is just clarifying it is one service because it could be ambiguous depending on how the Poco supplies it

Exhibit 230.7 is a bad example, I would ignore it.

 

[kwired]

What I meant in that part is the service entrance conductors come from transformer and terminate in main service fused disconnect .

Utility transformer has service conductors on load side.
SDS say you have customer owned 480x 120/240 - that is not a service that is a feeder circuit.

I replied before realizing there were many other posts, not sure yet what I might have missed in those, sorry if I stepped on any toes.

 

[hhsting]

You keep intermingling two services, and one service with two sets of SEC. The reference in 230.2 to 230.40 ex2 is just clarifying it is one service because it could be ambiguous depending on how the Poco supplies it

Exhibit 230.7 is a bad example, I would ignore it.

See post 38 it’s saying if install complies with 230.2 first paragraph exception becoming one utility then the SEC #1 service disco #1, SEC#2 service disco #2, SEC#3 service disco #3 are Not required to be grouped. So then service disco #1,#2,#3 are not required to be grouped that was the question?

 

[electrofelon]

See post 38 it’s saying if install complies with 230.2 first paragraph exception becoming one utility then the SEC #1 service disco #1, SEC#2 service disco #2, SEC#3 service disco #3 are Not required to be grouped. So then service disco #1,#2,#3 are not required to be grouped that was the question?

What is the "it" . What are you referring to?

 

[hhsting]

What is the "it" . What are you referring to?

it is referring to post #38 response by don_resqcapt19

 

[electrofelon]

it is referring to post #38 response by don_resqcapt19

I'm having a hard time understanding what the question is can you just rephrase the question?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

No, or not necessarily. As I said in your other thread, the NEC does not define occupancy. You would have to check with your building code department to see if a given tenant space is legally a separate occupancy.

I consider the conductors from each meter to be service entrance conductors and do not really look at what the occupancy may be.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

what? Please see attachment we are talking about NEC 230.2 exception first paragraph part where it talks about For the purpose of 230.40 exception no. 2....?

So if I have from one utility transformer one set of service entrance conductor # 1 and from that same transformer second set of service entrance conductor #2 and third set of service entrance conductor #3 then their service discos #1,#2,#3 are not required to be grouped?

Please also see separate attachment NEC 2014 Exhibit 230.7 shows each service entrance conductor i.e service entrance conductor #1, #2 #3...shows them being grouped and mentions per 230.40 exception no. 2

I stand by my statement that each set of service entrance conductors is permitted to have up to six service disconnects. See 230.71(B).

The service disconnecting means for each service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service-entrance conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1, 3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a switchboard or in switchgear. There shall be not more than six sets of disconnects per service grouped in any one location. {/quote].
The only real issue is the last sentence about grouping. That word is not defined, so how much space between sets of disconnects so that they are not in the same group is up to the local inspection authority.

 

[electrofelon]

I consider the conductors from each meter to be service entrance conductors and do not really look at what the occupancy may be.

But if you want those disconnects to not be grouped and be in different spots, the only way to do that is by having multiple occupancies.

 

[hhsting]

I stand by my statement that each set of service entrance conductors is permitted to have up to six service disconnects. See 230.71(B).

Ok but please see posts# 38, 39 questions are about 230.40 Exception no.2 and first paragraph exception 230.2 Not about 230.40 exception no.1. Do you still standby them?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Ok but please see posts# 38, 39 questions are about 230.40 Exception no.2 and first paragraph exception 230.2 Not about 230.40 exception no.1. Do you still standby them?

Ex #2 has nothing to do with my answer.

 

[hhsting]

Ex #2 has nothing to do with my answer.

Ok if Ex no.2 has nothing do with your answer then please see post #35 question which remained unanswered about 230.40 ex no. 2 and 230.2 exception that makes one utility and each service entrance conductor service disco grouping what do you think about that?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

But if you want those disconnects to not be grouped and be in different spots, the only way to do that is by having multiple occupancies.

Then the code will have to define what that term means for the purposes of this section. Typically, but not always, where you have multiple meters, they serve different tenants and/or owners, and you can have the disconnects in different spots.
Where you have multiple meters for different rates or something like that, you do have a single tenant and/or owner, then I can the disconnects being required to be grouped.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Ok if Ex no.2 has nothing do with your answer then please see post #35 question which remained unanswered about 230.40 ex no. 2 and 230.2 exception that makes one utility what do you think about that?

All exception #2 does is to make it clear that one set of service entrance conductors are permitted to serve the permitted two to six service disconnects where the disconnects are in individual enclosures. This exception applies separately to each set of service entrance conductors.

Without the exception, it is not clear that one set of service entrance conductors can be tapped off into multiple sets of service entrance conductors to feed the 2 to 6 disconnects that are permitted to be installed.

 

[hhsting]

All exception #2 does is to make it clear that one set of service entrance conductors are permitted to serve the permitted two to six service disconnects where the disconnects are in individual enclosures. This exception applies separately to each set of service entrance conductors.

Without the exception, it is not clear that one set of service entrance conductors can be tapped off into multiple sets of service entrance conductors to feed the 2 to 6 disconnects that are permitted to be installed.

Ok so if you see 230.2 first paragraph second sentence from top for the purpose of 230.40 exception no.2 in below attached image... let’s say I use that

Ok so I am using 230.2 first paragraph...now
Are you saying service discos from each of the sets of service entrance conductors are not req to be grouped? Following exhibit references 230.4 exception no.2 and shows each service entrance conductor service disco grouped

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[electrofelon]

Then the code will have to define what that term means for the purposes of this section. Typically, but not always, where you have multiple meters, they serve different tenants and/or owners, and you can have the disconnects in different spots.
Where you have multiple meters for different rates or something like that, you do have a single tenant and/or owner, then I can the disconnects being required to be grouped.

I agree it is sticky without a definition. I have always just assumed we need to research what the building has for occupancies as defined by the local building code. In some areas it's very specific and you cant just add/convert/call a tenant an occupancy without all sorts of review, etc. It can even get into zoning.

 

[electrofelon]

YES DISCONNECTS FOR A SET OF SERVICE ENTRANCE CONDUCTORS INSTALLED PER 230.40 EXCEPTION 2 MUST BE GROUPED.

 

[hhsting]

YES DISCONNECTS FOR A SET OF SERVICE ENTRANCE CONDUCTORS INSTALLED PER 230.40 EXCEPTION 2 MUST BE GROUPED.

YES DISCONNECTS FOR A SET OF SERVICE ENTRANCE CONDUCTORS INSTALLED PER 230.40 EXCEPTION 2 MUST BE GROUPED.

I got that part. But exhibit below shows Sets of service entrance conductor Service disco group referencing 230.40 ex no2:

I have SETS of service entrance #1,#2,#3 conductors each with service disco #1,#2 ,#3 per NEC 2014 section 230.2 first paragraph For the purpose of 230.40 exceptions no 2 underground sets of conductors 1/0 AWG and larger ruining to same location and connected at supply end but not connected load end.

Do those sets of service entrance conductor service disco have to be grouped?